On Apr 29, 2010, at 1:53 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:49 AM, Julian Reschke
> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 29.04.2010 10:34, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>
>>> On Apr 29, 2010, at 1:13 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd be in favor to fix this completely; otherwise we'll just have
>>>> another bug, another issue, and another series of change proposals.
>>>
>>> Just to make sure we're perfectly clear on this: do you object to
>>> closing ISSUE-82 at this time?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> If you do object, do you have a specific suggestion for what could
>>> address your objection?
>>
>> Removing
>>
>> ", and would therefore not be supported in conforming
>> implementations"
>>
>> would address my objection.
>
> I support that too. I agree the cited text adds more confusion then
> it helps.
Ian, are you ok with striking that clause from the note:
"Note: The profile IDL attribute on head elements (with the
HTMLHeadElement interface) is intentionally omitted, and would
therefore not be supported in conforming implementations. (It is
mentioned here as it was defined in a previous version of the DOM
specifcations.)"
Thinking about it more, it seems like the specific "therefore" clause
cited by Julian is a false statement of fact. The normative text only
actually implies that the profile IDL attribute would not *need to* be
supported in conforming implementations. The spec does not imply that
it definitely would *not* be supported, since the spec does not forbid
providing any additional interfaces on objects that implement
HTMLHeadElement.
Regards,
Maciej